Tim---Until I read that, I never knew it banned importing new slaves.
The US Government banned the importation of slaves in the early 1800s (I believe it was under President Jefferson).
The CSA was doing nothing "unique" in that regard.
The "slave state/free state" political discussion regarding the admittance of new states to the union, in addition to the original 13, had nothing to do with the importation of slaves.
It had everything to do with the idea that "states rights" superceded that of the federal government. Slavery was the primary precipitating factor in the political discussion----the new "slave" or "free" states were courted by the North or South to increase political power in Congress. It was important to the South that a balance be struck amongst the admission of "slave" or "free" states for the purpose of balancing the US Senate. Since the North had such a great advantage in population and hence representatives in the House of Representatives, the only way the South could achieve political parity was in the Senate. This is the reason for so many "compromises" of the time in conjunction with the admittance of new states to the Union.
This argument was a mere continuation of two larger problems.
First, the original government of the US was not based on the US Constitution, but the "Articles of Confederation." (note--Articles of Confederation...Confederate States of America---this is not a coincidence). The AoC government was a loose confederation of all the states with a very weak federal government...to stem the fear of a strong central authority ala the King of England. Additionally, many of the states were hesitent to give up their sovereignty to the federal government. This system did not work and it was scrapped for the US Constitution. The US Constitution provided for a "stronger" federal presence over the states and essentially established a roadmap for the increased dominance of the federal government over the state government.
Despite the many compromises in the original US Constitution (see the articles dealing with the counting of slaves in the population for representative purposes in the House and the treatment of slaves as property), you still had two differant sides with two very different views. The North, with its pre-industrial society was in favor of a strong federal government and the South, with its the slave based agrarian society, was in favor of a strong state government.
The mistake many people make is that they try to explain away the "slave issue" and say it is merely a "states rights" issue. This brings me to problem number two. As far back as 1776, Thomas Jefferson tried to free the slaves in the Declaration of Independence (probably more out of an understanding of the economic problems of slavery as opposed to any human rights issues). However his attempt was thwarted by the Continental Congress---the Southern Colonies would sign no such declaration freeing the slaves. Therefore the North and South colonies decided to throw that clause out and sign the declaration...essentially the decision was made to put off the slavery question until a later date. Already in 1776 the lines were drawn over the slave issue, and by extension the issue of federal control and state sovereignty. When the AoC experiment failed and a stronger federal authority established, the writing was on the wall for the South...the slavery issue would have to be dealt with. What the North and South did, was draw the process out for over 50 years in compromise after compromise.
After 50 years of compromise it became impossible to differentiate the issues of "states rights" and "slavery" as many revisionist attempts of history attempt to do so today. Back then, the key buzzword was "states rights" echoed by the Calhouns of the South. Well what else were they going to say??? I just cant see John Calhoun say that the South needed to protect its right to "keep slaves." That argument would be too repugnant to discuss outright---therefore, "states rights" became the phrase of holy war in the South. The South's source of economic power was based upon the slavery system. In order to protect this source of power, it HAD to promote and if necessary, by force of arms, protect a strong soveriegn state system from federal power. The idea of "states rights" was a means to an end...the end of course being the protection of the economic well being of the south in the form of slavery. Additionally, "states rights" became a big stick the South could use in its ongoing power struggle with the North...and power begets more power.
Of course the stupid thing about all this is that with the increased industrialization of the south, the economic need for slaves would have dissappeared over time---why feed and house 50 slaves when you can use new machines that will do the work faster and better??? Unfortunately the South was too shortsighted to see the future and instead of welcoming it, felt the need to fight to preserve an archaic society. The South fell into a trap..."states rights" had been the rallying cry for so long, that the South failed to recognize that it had outlived its usefullness and that preservation of an idea just to preserve it, was foolish.
